Cenvat credit admissibility upheld where documentary evidence of receipt and use outweighed retracted statements and unsupported objections.

Cenvat credit was held admissible where the assessee produced independent documentary evidence showing receipt and use of inputs, including cheque payments, octroi receipts, RG-23 entries and monthly returns. Retracted confessional statements, unsupported by corroborative material, were insufficient to displace that evidence or deny credit. The storage-capacity objection also failed because the relevant inquiry was whether the goods could be held when received, not the total quantity received over two years. Applying the test of preponderance of probability, the Tribunal's factual findings were upheld and no substantial question of law arose for interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing Cenvat credit on the basis that the inputs were actually received and used by the assessee, and whether any substantial question of law arose for interference with the Tribunal's findings.

Analysis: The record showed payment by cheque, supporting octroi receipts, entries in RG-23, monthly returns, and evidence of use of the inputs in manufacturing final products. The confessional statements relied upon by the revenue had been retracted and were not supported by corroborative evidence sufficient to displace the documentary material. The finding on storage capacity was also not shown to discredit receipt of inputs, since the relevant inquiry was the capacity to hold goods received at a given time and not the aggregate quantity received over two years. On an overall appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal applied the correct test of preponderance of probability and concluded that the demand was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's view that the Cenvat credit was admissible was upheld, no substantial question of law arose, and the revenue's appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee produces independent documentary evidence of receipt and use of inputs, retracted confessional statements alone, without corroboration, are insufficient to deny Cenvat credit or to justify appellate interference as a substantial question of law.

---